And how so?

By pushing open borders?

oh shit yall are actually having a intellectual debate nvm

Sperm Banks should be considered child abuse actually

Unless you are married

A company has economic reasons for pushing degenerate liberal things, because consumerism and open-borders generate huge profits.

Putting a kid in a scenario without a father is so beyond fucked

Imagine being that selfish

I do agree, to an extent, that a government could be culturally destructive, like in China.

A govt need only keep corporate interests domestic, not control the attitudes that make corporations capable of pursuing certain things

you know what caused companies to become so evil

at least partially

Making them legally have to maximize profits

if they aren't fully owned by one person

I'm not advocating for a general or vague cultural filter, I'm advocating for a specific ban on certain destructive things.

It's possible, like with smoking for example.

We stopped smoking ads, and it had an effect on # of smokers.

Hard disagree. Theyre not always maximizing profits anymore anyway, they pursue personal agendas. Soros is technically influencing them as a person, much like we have the power to do in the aggregate.

I mean, their personal agenda barely costs them a fraction of their total profits.

They have money to spare, especially to influence the nation.

Well ChrisTiam, i hope someday a govt doesnt decide conservatism or gun ownership are "destructive" habits that need to be banned.

Like I said, specific bans on the ability to PUSH habits, not the habits themselves.

Whats common sense for me is not common sense for another. Lets sort it out as a community, not enforced under punishment of law

Like it or not, half the nation would find you destructive. You dont want to give the govt the power to act on that sentiment right now

Heck, a solid quarter wouldnt mind to see you dead

"Its not illegal to own a gun, but advocating gun ownership is pushing a dangerous habit, ban it"

A generation later, guns are banned anyway

The government would be able to do that now if Democrats had complete control.

The reason why this hasn't been done is because of plurality.

Well its unconstitutional... not that they care i suppose. But the answer is 1776, not flipping back and forth on who forces who to do what

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nFUvLNL7E8Q

This was aimed at younger audiences, as described by GUCCI themselves.

The fact that companies are allowed the freedom to push this propaganda at children is why I hold my position.

The government, in theory, has as much power as the people gives it.

I know, for a fact, that many people would be angry if the government banned propagations of gun culture

However, even in a pluralistic society, I don't think, for a second, that anyone defends what's shown in this video.

A lot would be angry if you banned that too. But what matters is any normal person is disgusted just like you and i. How do we keep society normal? Community values

I don't know if that's enough, is all I'm saying. My generation, at such a young age, doesn't really care for traditional values.

I actually share your concern. I dont know if its enough, but from my perspective its all i got

Most people are too apathetic as well, most boycotts fail miserably because no one commits anymore.

Democracy is the worst form of government, except for every other form of government <:trumpmoji:624684793036275730>